When Clinton was impeached, it was for lying under oath to a grand
jury, not for the conduct his lying was intended to cover. Republicans
contended that lying is lying, that lying about anything under oath
rose to the level of an impeachable offense. Democrats tried to define
such lying outside the scope of what the Founders had intended in
prescribing such a penalty for "high crimes and misdemeanors,"
contending that lying about immoral sexual behavior was not only
expected, but was no more serious than ripping that do-not-remove tag
off your mattress.
Indeed, perjury seems to stand alone in the criminal code as void of
nuance and void of a hierarchy of heinousness. Why is that? We have
1st degree murder, 2nd degree, manslaughter, murder with special
circumstances, negligent homicide, and killing in self-defense, all
carrying different sentencing guidelines, even though the end result
is the same, a dead human being. The same goes for the offense of
robbery--a hierarchy of kinds and a proportionate hiererchy of
penalties for conviction.
What is there about perjury that has not admitted to a similar
hierarchy? Why is the subject about which one is found to be lying not
a factor in the penalty phase? Do you think it should be, and if not,
why not? |